2011/6/25 Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch>:
> String mixins themselves are 'a little bit ugly' (but unquestionably very
> useful).
> I think the syntax should keep reflecting that.
>
> Your proposal is a try to make up for Ds lack of macros. I'd prefer macros.
> Also overloading the meaning of 'mixin template' seems to be questionable. As
> I
> understand it, your proposal would make code like this valid?:
>
> mixin template bar(bool b){
> static if(b){
> enum bar="foo(123);"
> }else{
> int foo(int x){
> return 123+x;
> }
> }
> }
>
> int main(){
> mixin bar!(0);
> int x=bar!(1);
> assert(x == 246);
> }
>
> This does not seem quite right to me.
>
> Cheers,
> -Timon
Yes, you can write template like that.
But it seems to me that is not good even if implicit string mixin is not used.
Kenji
